Gotta give the owners/Bettman some credit here. They've compromised in order to save the season. I think by doing this and already setting a start date for an 82 game season they've put the onus on the players. Hopefully they do the right thing and accept.

'I'd like to believe, after we are done [reviewing] this [offer], that it's an excellent starting point and there's a deal to be made,''

To me it sounds like a counter offer will follow. I hope I'm wrong.

You're not.

Why do some think it's a bad thing ? It means now there's a deadline to get the full season in. The NHL has cut back on it's initial offer. Now the meaningful negotiations start back up rather then both sides walking away from the table.

In my opinion , that's nothing but a positive compared to what we've been hearing.

I too believe the 50-50 thing is a powerful PR tool for the owners. Public sentiment will soon change direction if the players appear disinterested. I'd be shocked if they accepted though. My opinion is they'll be negotiated down to that, but only on a sliding scale over 3 or 4 years. Whatever, and whenever this gets finalized it'll be interesting to see how the accounting for this year is devised. Without extending the season at least 2 weeks,(and maybe scrapping the All-Star break) it'd be hard to fit 82 games in, without starting the playoffs late. I'm a big fan of playoffs starting early in April.

Someone had to blink to get this thing to the next level. Interesting to me, as I just read the article about Bettman that was suggested by Bookboy on another thread. That article painted a different picture than the one I(and many here)envisioned.

I think they are looking at extending the season two weeks (End of June) and doing an extra game every five weeks.

"According to Bettman, a Nov. 2 start to the season would allow for a full schedule, 82 games, as well as a full playoff format (four rounds, best-of-seven), all of it wrapping up by the end of June 2013.

Bettman also said that a compressed slate of 82 games would necessitate a slight increase in scheduling, meaning that players would play one extra game every five weeks, in comparison to their current rate. If the union were to object to such frequency over a season that lasts some six months, it conceivably would return with an offer to play only a 76-game regular season."

I too believe the 50-50 thing is a powerful PR tool for the owners. Public sentiment will soon change direction if the players appear disinterested. I'd be shocked if they accepted though. My opinion is they'll be negotiated down to that, but only on a sliding scale over 3 or 4 years. Whatever, and whenever this gets finalized it'll be interesting to see how the accounting for this year is devised. Without extending the season at least 2 weeks,(and maybe scrapping the All-Star break) it'd be hard to fit 82 games in, without starting the playoffs late. I'm a big fan of playoffs starting early in April.

Someone had to blink to get this thing to the next level. Interesting to me, as I just read the article about Bettman that was suggested by Bookboy on another thread. That article painted a different picture than the one I(and many here)envisioned.

I think they are looking at extending the season two weeks (End of June) and doing an extra game every five weeks.

"According to Bettman, a Nov. 2 start to the season would allow for a full schedule, 82 games, as well as a full playoff format (four rounds, best-of-seven), all of it wrapping up by the end of June 2013.

Bettman also said that a compressed slate of 82 games would necessitate a slight increase in scheduling, meaning that players would play one extra game every five weeks, in comparison to their current rate. If the union were to object to such frequency over a season that lasts some six months, it conceivably would return with an offer to play only a 76-game regular season."

The statements recently by Murphy of how much money was lost over the first few weeks of no NHL games has hurt. So far I say the PA has played their cards correctly. I am not optmistic as Book stated until, yes, the puck has dropped for the 1st game.

And of course it begs the question- Why wasn't the 50/50 offered in the first freakin place ?!

I don't care anymore about who flinched first just get it done. As much as I have enjoyed watching the PBruins, Seth Griffith and Anthony Camara I want the real stuff por favor!

I say Bettman is the one who went to Jacobs, Murray Edwards, Ilitch and Snider with NHL games numbers losses to get another offer out. Sick of reading how hockey fans are blaming Bettman for this when he is just doing the rich owners bidding.

Players in other leagues (eg AHL) will not count against the Player's 50%, but everything above $105,000 will count towards a team's cap. That is probably reasonable, as that amount is the same as the waiver cut-off so the only players likely to be above it are ones like Redden.

Teams can decide (within some limits) to partition cap responsibilities when trading players.

While contracts can have different $ each year, the variance would be limited.

Does anyone understand the "Make Whole" provision? It sounds like the league will reimburse the players money lost due to the share reduction during the first two years. Am I reading that right?

"Again, premised upon an assumed 5% growth rate between 2011/12 and 2012/13, the make whole amount is calculated to be a maximum of $149 million for the 2012/13 season ($1.883 Billion minus $1.734 Billion (57% multiplied by $3.303 Billion minus 50% multiplied by $3.468 Billion). Similarly, utilizing that formula and our 5% growth projections, the "make whole" amount is calculated to be a maximum of $62 million for the 2013/14 season.

To accomplish the make whole, each Players' pro-rata make whole will be determined for the first two years of the Agreement and will be paid to each Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit over the life of the Player's existing SPC. For those Players whose contracts expire after the 2012/13 season, the benefit will be paid when final HRR is determined for this season (in October/November 2013). Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits.

The make whole obligation will be operational only through the 2013/14 season because, beginning in Year 3, the projected growth in League-wide revenues should have resulted in an increase in absolute Players' Share dollars (in excess of the Players' Share of $1.883 Billion in 2011/12). This will effectively restore "full value" to all existing SPCs without any continuing need for a make whole.

We note in regard to this proposal, that while the NHLPA's August 14 proposal was premised upon a 7% annual growth rate in HRR, we instead used the more conservative growth rate of 5%, consistent with our prior proposals. If the NHLPA's estimate of revenue growth is more accurate, then the amount of money needed to effectuate a make whole would actually be less."

Yah I can see Fehr coming after this a bit...but the adjustments should not be drawn out lets say 6% middle ground fellas. Eh fingers crossed again...

"The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

"making whole....growth" all that crap is just smoke and mirrors. if both sides would just forget about that stupid dance and concentrate on negotiating "a number"...based on the same accounting function as the current split. why are they still attempting to sell something to each other that most teenagers could see through.

whether revenues grow, or retract doesn't matter. they're fighting about a split. attempting to minimize, or maximize(depending on which side your on) the impact by projecting what "could be" is irrelevant.

I could probably spend my time trying to figure out why they're doing it like this. But instead I'll "crowd source" it.

If the idea here is that, in two years, the absolute players' share will be back to the $1.88B range it is now (it's actually still a little low at 5% growth - $3.3B x 57% = $1.88B; $3.64B x 50% = $1.82B), they why go through the whole "make whole" rigamarole? Why not cap player spending at $1.88B for three years, and then drop the cap to 50% in the fourth year regardless of revenue gains or losses?

Similarly, the maximum make whole amount that could be charged against the players' share is $211M, and this won't be charged in one year but spread out over the life of existing contracts - and as we know, the majority of the contracts that will have big "make whole" elements are loooooong. In the first year, the absolute players' share will go up $82M, in the second year it goes up $86 million. The first year the NHL expects to be charging make whole amounts back to the players's share, it goes up another $90M, so even if the entire make-whole amount were charged against the players share that year, it would reduce it by a total of $121M. Combined, all NHL teams are $304M under the salary cap, and have total salary commitments of something like $1.95B. Factoring in 5% growth, 57% of HRR would add up to 1.97B. In other words, the league hasn't met it's obligation to give 57% of HRR to the players yet, even with all the crazy deals signed at the 11th hour. Injuries, call-ups, and outstanding FAs will push that number up, but we're talking about the potential for only $100M of the make whole affecting the real dollars paid to players.

To quote Mason Verger, say it with the respect it deserves: one hundred million dollars. About $6M less than what the players's share goes up in year 4.

Sum all that up, and this amounts to the players getting the same real dollars as they did last year for four years of a six year deal. And then they would see a 5% increase each year after that. As teh NHL press release says, if real revenues go up faster than 5%, the players' amount would increase sooner and faster.

Oates does not live here any more Book. DrCC is better. Your analysis is smart, I have nothing to offer other than I do not have all the facts and figures. My brother is a cost accountant, numbers are numbing when you consider all of the details of revenue and expenses. A roll back will be agreed upon despite my personal objections. We all live near our incomes. Players will capitulate soon. Again to wit: wages lag behind inflation, and debt ridden societies with have inflation once the economy starts to grow. Growth in NHL revenues are not like cell phone sales. The ecoonomy is not going to replicate the 90s for some decades if at all. Oh well what the crapy do I know.

Book, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, the money will be coming from the player's share, but it could be thought of as locking in the current player share in $ for about 4 years, then letting the players have their share increase with league revenue.

Didn't the players make an offer where they would first keep their current money for a few years? Maybe this is closer to middle ground that I was thinking.

Edit(Yay for the return of edit!): I appreciate the vote of confidence isla, but yeesh some of the provisions they are suggesting are convoluted.

"Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights," Fehr said in the letter, according to a report by TSN. "As you will see, at the 5 percent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

"We're studying it and we're trying to get ready to give a response tomorrow," said union lawyer Steve Fehr, brother of the union leader.

"We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road," Donald Fehr wrote. "The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

Fehr doesn't think they are convoluted. Like Fehr's 1st offer to the NHL there is teeth in the new proposal the will not slip by Fehr's watchful eye.

Sigh still hoping this can start something in the right direction but Bettman is not going to like Donald's 1st response to the current offer.

"Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights," Fehr said in the letter, according to a report by TSN. "As you will see, at the 5 percent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

"We're studying it and we're trying to get ready to give a response tomorrow," said union lawyer Steve Fehr, brother of the union leader.

"We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road," Donald Fehr wrote. "The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

Fehr doesn't think they are convoluted. Like Fehr's 1st offer to the NHL there is teeth in the new proposal the will not slip by Fehr's watchful eye.

Sigh still hoping this can start something in the right direction but Bettman is not going to like Donald's 1st response to the current offer.

[/QUOTE]

And they're not...just horsesh*t, and it's being shovelled in equal portions, from both sides.

Basically...the PA is saying, 57% is fine. Leave it alone, cuz together, we'll grow the game like we have been, and you'll end up getting that extra money you say you want/need. The pitches are all variations of the above comment

The league is saying, what's the problem here guys? Together, we're going to grow this thing just like we have been....and "REALLY",.. you're not looking at another pay cut...cuz you'll be making as much or more. Although the league has moved on it's ridiculous early offers, their pitches all attempt to hide the fact they want reductions.

But that isn't the issue, and both sides need to confront that head-on. Regardless how big the pot gets...if revenue goes to 10 billion, and everyone is swimming in even more cash....the owners would still want a bigger piece of the pie. They feel entitled to more...and they'll get it. Negotiate that number, and a deal will be made....sometime. It's close enough now, that failure to do so, makes no sense financially, for either side.

This fight ain't about "need'....it's about "want".

Making whole...all of these growth projections...just side-step the issues, ensure a longer standoff, and provide an additional tens ofmillions in legal and accounting fees to more fatcats.

Book, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, the money will be coming from the player's share, but it could be thought of as locking in the current player share in $ for about 4 years, then letting the players have their share increase with league revenue.

Didn't the players make an offer where they would first keep their current money for a few years? Maybe this is closer to middle ground that I was thinking.

Yeah, that's the other thing that was rattling around - except Fehr was proposing that the players would see a modest increase for the next three years regardless of revenue, then have the option to revert to 57% in year four of a four year deal. The concept is actually pretty similar to what the NHL has put on the table in that the PA says the owners would pocket about 5% growth each year for three years and over that time, they could use revenue sharing to stabilize struggling franchises with those additional funds. After three years, the players would have the option to come back as "full partners" again or continue with guaranteed growth. Sort of the same strategy of managing the absolute dollars to sharpen their position on the final percentage. It's a clever response akin to saying "okay, we see some value in what you're suggesting, but why don't you take the side you think we should take?"

The three big differences, though: players' share continues to grow rather than shrink as the owners say they need it to do; percentage reverts to 57% in the end, so there's no real systematic change; the deal would be only 4 years.